Musk throws journalist off Twitter.

[Nithavela]

Sorry, I am forgetting myself.

The Bible teaches us that nonbelievers have been blinded to the truth of God and to many other truths.

I pray that God will reveal himself to you.

Maybe you should post in the only-christians part of the forum, where you are not subject to the worldview of the unenlightened.

 

[Nithavela]

Twitter receives special government protection that most other private entities do not have. The DOJ has been directing some of Twitter's activities. Undoubtedly, the American government is in the process of directing the activities of many other supposedly "private" organizations and ALL of it is about serving the Washington establishment. It's sort of like fascism.View attachment 325291

 

[Not of the World]

I think you may have confused this site with "Parler".

Yea, because anyone that doesn't love and worship the Democratic Party is a FASCIST, right?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yea, because anyone that doesn't love and worship the Democratic Party is a FASCIST, right?

Have you considered the possibility that you might not actually be a nice person?

(And again, where do you get this notion that I am involved with the Democrats. I don't worship anything. I find worship an undignified action.)

 

[Not of the World]

Have you considered the possibility that you might not actually be a nice person?

(And again, where do you get this notion that I am involved with the Democrats. I don't worship anything. I find worship an undignified action.)

I'm not all bad. I gave you truth and prayed for you.

 

[Tinker Grey]

...I see many patterns.

pareidolia

 

[Landon Caeli]

My friend Mr tree

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm not all bad. I gave you truth and prayed for you.

You seem to have a loose connection to facts and your prayer is useless.

 

[Say it aint so]

I don't think he advocated for absolute anarchy, did he?

That seems to be the strawman some people propped up in efforts to try to catch him in a hypocrisy trap, but there's a stark contrast between the true "wild west", and someone merely saying "the town square shouldn't be moderated and administered by a heavily politically biased entity"

If would seem as if some people are going out of their way to push the envelope on certain things just so they can prove "Elon was wrong". Ex: when he pointed out the flaws with the "verified system" Twitter had, which were valid critiques of the system...sure, he was short-sighted in how he approached the problem with the "bull in a China shop" routine, and his approach could be rightfully described as "ready, fire, aim", but people seemed all to eager to run out and try to abuse the changes immediately just to be able to say "See! Look!, Elon was wrong!"

Just because he had a flawed solution to the problem, doesn't mean the problem never existed.


"I want to show everyone where Elon Musk is at, at all times" isn't an ideological viewpoint. At best, it's an unhealthy obsession, at worst, it's a potential security risk.

I've said anything that's against the law should be banned...last time I checked, committing terrorism and promoting and encouraging acts of violence is against the law, yes?

But, perhaps that should've been a gripe brought up to the previous leadership team when they were allowing other world leaders to say things like this on the platform.

View attachment 325181

View attachment 325182

But they were too busy focusing on "important stuff", like making sure right-wing pundits didn't say anything they didn't like about bathrooms.

Had the previous moderation teams been focused more on consistency in the application of their rules (instead of making sure they were abiding by the intersectionality hierarchy chart), they may have had more credibility.


Actually, if you were familiar with some of my previous posts, you'd know that I was against people trying to profit off of selling quack cures and promoting quack cures for profit.

With regards to banning folks for "promoting vaccine hesitancy", I don't think that all bans pertaining to covid were equally warranted.

For instance if someone was using libelous and slanderous language (which are against the law) to the effect of "Bill Gates is trying to microchip people" or "Soros has a plot to use vaccines to intentionally kill people to reduce the population", then sure, toss them off the platform.

If a person is saying "Hey, children are at significantly lower risk, I don't think there's any reason to rush out and get your 6 yo vaccinated for covid" or "the vaccines aren't stopping the transmission anymore, they're just reducing symptoms so I don't think it's worth the risk" or "if you just recovered from covid, you're unlikely to catch it again for while, so there's no reason to race out and get the vaccine"... while those statements could create vaccine hesitancy among some who read them, they're accurate, and expressing an opinion based on a true statement shouldn't catch a ban.

...but the subject matters that people were getting banned for weren't all rooted in public safety.

Critiquing something can't be banned simply on the grounds that the critique could cause some random nutjob to do something irrational against the target of that critique. If we applied that rule universally, we'd never be able to challenge anything.

I guess this is going to play out exactly as many expected, as in this, "Analyst Dan Ives says Elon Musk will likely step down from Twitter as company is on track to lose roughly $4 billion" and the value of Tesla stock losing half it's value. He has investors and needs advertising and when your mission statement in said platform is owning the libs and banning people who ruffle your feathers, then well, there it is.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Journalists who won’t delete Musk tweets remain locked out of Twitter​

Elon Musk suspended reporters from Twitter and later reinstated them, but with a catch: They must nix their tweets related to the account @ElonJet, which has tracked Musk’s private plane using public data​

None of the journalists’ tweets about @ElonJet, however, disclosed information about Musk or his jet’s location, despite Musk’s claim that the journalists had posted “assassination coordinates.”

The reporters maintain that their tweets were part of their reporting activities and didn’t violate any rules about “doxing,” the unsavory practice of posting personal information without permission. Accepting Musk’s demand for deletion, they say, would amount to a false admission of wrongdoing and an abdication to Musk’s subjective enforcement. They remain suspended.

[One journalist] added, “It’s his platform. He can ban anyone he wants. [for those in the back -- Twitter rules do not violate First Amendment protections] And we can point out how he’s making up pretextual rules that just so happen to target journalism he doesn’t like.”

 

[durangodawood]

View attachment 325307
My friend Mr tree

I want to hug him.